M/S DIN DAYAL PURSOTAM LAL,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

7%; that the Tribunal, therefore, did not commit any error in accepting the gross profit rate of 8% on the purchases, which were otherwise found in-genuine; that the disclosure of Rs.61.05 lacs made by the assessee in his statement pertained to the bogus purchases and was, therefore, rightly assessed by the ld. CIT(A) and the Tribunal; that

M/S DIN DAYAL PURSOTAM LAL,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

7%; that the Tribunal, therefore, did not commit any error in accepting the gross profit rate of 8% on the purchases, which were otherwise found in-genuine; that the disclosure of Rs.61.05 lacs made by the assessee in his statement pertained to the bogus purchases and was, therefore, rightly assessed by the ld. CIT(A) and the Tribunal; that

M/S DIN DAYAL PURSOTAM LAL,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

7%; that the Tribunal, therefore, did not commit any error in accepting the gross profit rate of 8% on the purchases, which were otherwise found in-genuine; that the disclosure of Rs.61.05 lacs made by the assessee in his statement pertained to the bogus purchases and was, therefore, rightly assessed by the ld. CIT(A) and the Tribunal; that

M/S STYLAM INDUSTRIES LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, C-1(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the Department’s appeal in for assessment year

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

40A(ia) of the Act. While doing so, the AO observed as follows : "2.6 The provisions of section 195 are applicable to all payees whether individual or of any other status who are covered under the definition of nonresident as per section 6 of the Income Tax Act. Under this section there is no threshold limit of the amount paid

M/S STYLAM INDUSTRIES LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, C-1(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the Department’s appeal in for assessment year

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

40A(ia) of the Act. While doing so, the AO observed as follows : "2.6 The provisions of section 195 are applicable to all payees whether individual or of any other status who are covered under the definition of nonresident as per section 6 of the Income Tax Act. Under this section there is no threshold limit of the amount paid

DCIT, C-1(1), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S STYLAM INDUSTRIES LTD., CHANDIGARH

In the result, the Department’s appeal in for assessment year

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

40A(ia) of the Act. While doing so, the AO observed as follows : "2.6 The provisions of section 195 are applicable to all payees whether individual or of any other status who are covered under the definition of nonresident as per section 6 of the Income Tax Act. Under this section there is no threshold limit of the amount paid

DCIT, C-1(1), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S STYLAM INDUSTRIES LTD., CHANDIGARH

In the result, the Department’s appeal in for assessment year

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

40A(ia) of the Act. While doing so, the AO observed as follows : "2.6 The provisions of section 195 are applicable to all payees whether individual or of any other status who are covered under the definition of nonresident as per section 6 of the Income Tax Act. Under this section there is no threshold limit of the amount paid

M/S APEX BUILDERS, LUDHIANA vs. ITO, W-2(1), LUDHIANA

The appeal is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member)

7. Per contra, the Ld. DR relied on the order of the lower authorities. The Ld. DR supported the AO’s assessment, stating that all disallowances were made as per law. Regarding the interest of Rs. 2,04,226, the DR argued that since TDS was not deducted and no certificate was provided to show that tax was paid

M/S AJAY KUMAR SOOD ENGINEERS & CONTRACTORS,SHIMLA vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

The appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

40A(3) the same is being deleted as the issue is already stands adjudicated above while dealing with similar addition to the one dealt in ground no. 4 for the A.Y. 2010-11. 8.2 Ground No. 4 relates to addition of Rs. 6,46,000/- on account of receipts from running of the resort. 8.3 With regard to the above

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. M/S AJAY KUMAR SOOD ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS, SHIMLA

The appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

40A(3) the same is being deleted as the issue is already stands adjudicated above while dealing with similar addition to the one dealt in ground no. 4 for the A.Y. 2010-11. 8.2 Ground No. 4 relates to addition of Rs. 6,46,000/- on account of receipts from running of the resort. 8.3 With regard to the above

SH. AJAY GOEL,SHIMLA vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

The appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

40A(3) the same is being deleted as the issue is already stands adjudicated above while dealing with similar addition to the one dealt in ground no. 4 for the A.Y. 2010-11. 8.2 Ground No. 4 relates to addition of Rs. 6,46,000/- on account of receipts from running of the resort. 8.3 With regard to the above

M/S AJAY KUMAR SOOD ENGINEERS & CONTRACTORS,SHIMLA vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

The appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

40A(3) the same is being deleted as the issue is already stands adjudicated above while dealing with similar addition to the one dealt in ground no. 4 for the A.Y. 2010-11. 8.2 Ground No. 4 relates to addition of Rs. 6,46,000/- on account of receipts from running of the resort. 8.3 With regard to the above

M/S AJAY KUMAR SOOD ENGINEERS & CONTRACTORS,SHIMLA vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

The appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

40A(3) the same is being deleted as the issue is already stands adjudicated above while dealing with similar addition to the one dealt in ground no. 4 for the A.Y. 2010-11. 8.2 Ground No. 4 relates to addition of Rs. 6,46,000/- on account of receipts from running of the resort. 8.3 With regard to the above

M/S AJAY KUMAR SOOD ENGINEERS & CONTRACTORS,SHIMLA vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

The appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

40A(3) the same is being deleted as the issue is already stands adjudicated above while dealing with similar addition to the one dealt in ground no. 4 for the A.Y. 2010-11. 8.2 Ground No. 4 relates to addition of Rs. 6,46,000/- on account of receipts from running of the resort. 8.3 With regard to the above

M/S AJAY KUMAR SOOD ENGINEERS & CONTRACTORS,SHIMLA vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

The appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

40A(3) the same is being deleted as the issue is already stands adjudicated above while dealing with similar addition to the one dealt in ground no. 4 for the A.Y. 2010-11. 8.2 Ground No. 4 relates to addition of Rs. 6,46,000/- on account of receipts from running of the resort. 8.3 With regard to the above

M/S AJAY KUMAR SOOD ENGINEERS & CONTRACTORS,SHIMLA vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

The appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

40A(3) the same is being deleted as the issue is already stands adjudicated above while dealing with similar addition to the one dealt in ground no. 4 for the A.Y. 2010-11. 8.2 Ground No. 4 relates to addition of Rs. 6,46,000/- on account of receipts from running of the resort. 8.3 With regard to the above

M/S KAPSONS FASHION PVT. LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. ACIT, C-2(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt.Diva Singh & Smt.Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.1014 To 1016/Chd/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2011-12 To 2013-14

TDS was deductible on total payment made to Rohan studios and every payment made was not to be considered separately as pleaded by the assessee. The order passed by the Ld.CIT(A), is, we find, not a reasoned and speaking order on the issue. Since the facts pleaded by the assessee need verification, we consider it fit to restore

SHRI MUNISH ARORA,CHANDIGARH vs. ACIT, CC-II, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeals filed for Assessee are disposed off as under:

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 156/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09 आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 157/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 158/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 169/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 170/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 171/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Shri Munish Arora, Vs. The Acit, बनाम Central Circle-Ii, 1136, Ist Floor, Chandigarh Sector 8-C, Chandigarh "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aexpa3762N अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent ( Physical Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Tej Mohan Singh, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal, Cit Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 25.09.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09.10.2024

7 to three people Mr. Ajay Sharma Ms. Gunjan and Mr. Sahil. They have simply disallowed it because the amount was in excess of section 40A(3). The ld. Counsel for the Assessee has filed details of different items for which payments were made to these people. In fact, the Assessee is running the business of event management and, therefore